Wednesday, February 9, 2011

İn its 1976 conference Dimbleby, Lord Hailsham warned of elective dictatorship. The only thing that, in modern times, prevent the UK becoming a dictatorship is the European Convention on Human Rights. This allows the citizen to challenge even an Act of Parliament on the basis that it violated the European Convention which, after all, the United Kingdom has solemnly agreed to respect international law. Indeed, the United Kingdom was among the first signatories of the Convention and the United Kingdom has adopted most of the memoranda of understanding between member states after the Council of Europe. A challenge to an Act of Parliament does not mean that courts may say that the law is null or "unconstitutional". Since the Law on Human Rights 1998, most courts can do is make a declaration of incompatibility and then it is for Parliament to address the incompatibility, for example, to amend the law. This way is called "the supremacy of Parliament" is maintained.

placed serious limits on access to justice through cuts to legal aid - (with even more to come);

streamlined extradition processes so that British citizens can be removed without insufficient protections.

The list is just a few of the things done by various elected Parliaments over recent times. The list could be extended several times over. The ability to use the European Convention on Human Rights has helped to moderate this tide of authoritarianism which has emanated from within British governments irrespective of political persuasion.

The document concludes that the time has now come for the UK government to consider whether or not it wishes to remain tied to an "inefficient, unaccountable and remote court" or "whether our own constitutional reforms have done enough to ensure that the British judiciary is itself capable of considering those questions as the final appellate court." They urge British governments to take great care to respect "core" human rights thereby reducing the scope for clashes with the judiciary such as those which developed in recent years. (The use of the word "core" suggests a minimalistic vision of what human rights entails in the modern world).

Next they wish the government to consider whether the present method of appointing justices to the UK Supreme Court provides for sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. "If Parliamentary Sovereignty is to remain the most important factor underpinning the legislative process, then Parliament must be able to consider what the views are of a candidate for the Supreme Court on how they are likely to interpret legislation ..."

Thirdly, the UK government should begin negotiations with the Council of Europe to make substantial reforms to the operation of the European Court of Human Rights. They wish to see the number of judges reflecting more accurately the populations of the 47 member States. Very importantly, they argue that the European Court should take a "strict constructionist" view of the meaning of articles and not use the "expansionist idea" of the convention being a "living instrument." On that view, the Convention's meaning would be stuck back in the 1950s which, by any reckoning was a very different time to the modern world. For example, it would not have been possible for the European Court to develop the concept of a "family" so as to bring within the concept groups of persons other than "man, wife and child."

They argue that in some areas - e.g. Article 8 (Privacy) - matters should be left entirely to national courts and in other areas there should be a very wide "margin of appreciation." Obviously, such developments would reduce the scope for the European Court to adjudicate in those areas.

They wish to see the proposed negotiations take no more than 2 years and, if they do not succeed(i.e. if the UK does not get its way), then the UK should consider withdrawing from the court's jurisdiction. It is highly questionable whether a Council of Europe Member State could simply withdraw from the court's jurisdiction whilst remaining a signatory to the convention and withdrawal from the Convention would necessitate withdrawal entirely from matters European (including the European Union). The economic consequences of that are probably incalculable at the present time.

A fourth proposal is that Parliament should repeal section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998. This provides that "so far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights." Thus, we would be taken back to the strictly literalist approach for reading legislation which was once so close to the hearts of many a British lawyer.

justiciable" - (i.e. matters on which the judges will not or may not pronounce).

This is heady and dangerous stuff which is cleverly and persuasively presented so as to appeal to those who dislike various decisions which have gone against the U.K. The latest bête noireis prisoner voting. It will also appeal to power-seeking politicians for whom Parliamentary Supremacy is a "power-sustaining device." The time is coming for people to weigh in the balance the real consequences of allowing Parliamentary Sovereignty full sway - (given how demonstrably authoritarian it has already been) - and the check on Parliamentary activity which is ultimately provided by the European Court of Human Rights. Would a U.K. Supreme Court packed with Judges who are to the liking of the politicians meet the bill? Somehow, for all the siren voices, I doubt it

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Continental Europe, the Anglo-American LAW WITH LAW AND AGENCY proceedings COMPARATIVE INVESTIGATION OF THE COURT
Around the Anglo-American Law within the framework of the theory of comparative law (Common Law), Legal Environment of Continental Europe with the style of one of the most important factors determining the form of legal thought özelliklerdir1. For example, the German Commercial Code are available in the "right and true view" theory (true and fair view) based on the true problem is not the same everywhere and the truth emerges. "Truth" Is it the same everywhere? This concept in the UK is the money? Here are the questions and issues like that, different legal environments olmaktadır2 cause.
Notable features of the method of legal thought in continental law, and all legal areas is based on abstract legal normlara3 olmasıdır4 been systematized. British Common Law 'when there is the traditional method of a law based on the event

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

New laws to combat illegal immigration in the U.S.
In the United States, the Congress in November, before the midterm elections, one of the most widely debated issues, the fight against illegal immigration.

U.S. Senate election held before the summer break, has approved a bill aimed at preventing illegal migration.

President Obama's approval Baarck yasalaşacak bill for that purpose, provides for expenditure of $ 600 million.